How can the county council deny these charges !

hawkelady

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/landlady-says-tenants-left-house-in-a-state-of-pure-chaos-and-destruction-36277874.html

Another reason landlords stay away from social housing tenants ! Not all are bad but the bad ones make the news !!

garhjw

Animals wouldn’t treat property like that.

hawkelady

And after the council vetting these animals they come along now when the damage is done and deny any responsibility!! The mind boggles

Cuddlesworth

hawkelady wrote: »

And after the council vetting these animals they come along now when the damage is done and deny any responsibility!! The mind boggles

Did you read the article? The landlord claims the council placed the tenants and are responsible for the damage(interesting if they win). The council claims the tenants were already in the property and as such, the landlord is responsible.

The cynic in me thinks the tenants did the old trick of not paying rent for a year or two, until eviction, then taking some of the rent they stole, paying the next landlord as private, then immediately telling the landlord they are going on RAS.

ThunbergsAreGo

hawkelady wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/landlady-says-tenants-left-house-in-a-state-of-pure-chaos-and-destruction-36277874.html

Another reason landlords stay away from social housing tenants ! Not all are bad but the bad ones make the news !!

What a disgrace, no doubt these people still have a "right to a house"

Mrs OBumble

naughtb4 wrote: »

What a disgrace, no doubt these people still have a "right to a house"

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Yes, I agree their behaviour is atrocious. But the question is what do you do with them, since shooting them isn't an option.

FWIW, I'd bet my right arm that the council are telling the truth - the tenants were in place before the RAS agreement started. No council is dumb enough to blatantly lie about such proveable stuff.

hawkelady

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

hawkelady wrote: »

And after the council vetting these animals they come along now when the damage is done and deny any responsibility!! The mind boggles

Did you read the article? The landlord claims the council placed the tenants and are responsible for the damage(interesting if they win). The council claims the tenants were already in the property and as such, the landlord is responsible.

The cynic in me thinks the tenants did the old trick of not paying rent for a year or two, until eviction, then taking some of the rent they stole, paying the next landlord as private, then immediately telling the landlord they are going on RAS.

I did read it. It'll be interesting to see the judges take on it .. I'd be inclined to believe the ll as there will be contracts in place surely

ThunbergsAreGo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Yes, I agree their behaviour is atrocious. But the question is what do you do with them, since shooting them isn't an option.

FWIW, I'd bet my right arm that the council are telling the truth - the tenants were in place before the RAS agreement started. No council is dumb enough to blatantly lie about such proveable stuff.

I actually don't know, it's a difficult situation

No point in looking for damages from the as it will all come from the state anyway. I am not sure how you punish animals like these

hawkelady

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

naughtb4 wrote: »

What a disgrace, no doubt these people still have a "right to a house"

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Yes, I agree their behaviour is atrocious. But the question is what do you do with them, since shooting them isn't an option.

FWIW, I'd bet my right arm that the council are telling the truth - the tenants were in place before the RAS agreement started. No council is dumb enough to blatantly lie about such proveable stuff.

Yes I would let them find their own way ... what would you do with them ? Put them in another house ??? I'd give them a cheap as chips portacabin at best.

Cuddlesworth

naughtb4 wrote: »

I actually don't know, it's a difficult situation

No point in looking for damages from the as it will all come from the state anyway. I am not sure how you punish animals like these

Its not even that. Imagine being the person in the council estate that has to live beside them if they do get "housed". Its the reason why a number of estates end up the way they do. Everybody decent does a runner eventually.

ThunbergsAreGo

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Its not even that. Imagine being the person in the council estate that has to live beside them if they do get "housed". Its the reason why a number of estates end up the way they do. Everybody decent does a runner eventually.

100%, it must be awful.

Give others a bad name

garhjw

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Yes, I agree their behaviour is atrocious. But the question is what do you do with them, since shooting them isn't an option.

FWIW, I'd bet my right arm that the council are telling the truth - the tenants were in place before the RAS agreement started. No council is dumb enough to blatantly lie about such proveable stuff.

Yes they should be homeless. If there are children involved they should be taken into care.

splinter65

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Yes, I agree their behaviour is atrocious. But the question is what do you do with them, since shooting them isn't an option.

FWIW, I'd bet my right arm that the council are telling the truth - the tenants were in place before the RAS agreement started. No council is dumb enough to blatantly lie about such proveable stuff.

Yes I think that their children should be removed from them and taken to a place of safety and comfort and that no further shelter or accommodation should be offered to them.

The_Conductor

garhjw wrote: »

Yes they should be homeless. If there are children involved they should be taken into care.

I don't agree with removing children from parents- unless it is absolutely necessary- however, there are clear child endangerment issues associated with parents bringing up children in conditions such as these- and there are compliance issues with removing toilets and other built-in conveniences, appliances and white goods (what the hell were they doing with them- selling them secondhand on buy-and-sell?)

I don't know who is in the right or wrong here- however, this tenant is the type of person who makes any sane landlord start crying when they hear the word 'RAS'. Its all well and good stating that you cannot discriminate against RAS tenants- however, if situations such as this continue to feature prominently in the media- landlords will avoid them without hitting any of the discrimination bullseyes..........

If the government are serious about RAS tenants being on a level footing with any other tenant- the flipside of the coin is there has to be consequences for tenants who behave like animals- and cutting landlords loose with no comeback has got to stop.

Yes- landlords are providing a service- however, the market in which they are operating is now subject to regulatory requirements such that it is no longer an open market arrangement- and you don't get to pick and choose- its either open market- or its not. The powers that have decided its not- QED- there are consequences as well as benefits of making this decision.

Claw Hammer

The_Conductor wrote: »

there are compliance issues with removing toilets and other built-in conveniences, appliances and white goods (what the hell were they doing with them- selling them secondhand on buy-and-sell?)

.

buy and sell hasn't been published in years. The trouble is that the RAS scheme is being used by councils to shift the problem tenants onto private landlords. The councils put in their own tenant but don't take responsibility for the damage caused by the tenant. The don't house the problem tenant in their own houses and thus don't have to pay if their own house is damaged.

jimmycrackcorm

Mrs OBumble wrote:

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

They'd certainly learn the value of free housing then.

But local authorities should be responsible for the damages caused by RAS and HAP tenants, especially since they're not allowed to be discriminated against for rentals.

murphaph

Hopefully a couple of precedents can be set and councils held financially responsible for such vandalism.

I don't even think it's an actual crime to smash your rented house up. If it was, the guards would have to prosecute those doing it. It's seen as a civil matter because the tenant is "in control of the property".

Such strange laws.

Claw Hammer

murphaph wrote: »

Hopefully a couple of precedents can be set and councils held financially responsible for such vandalism.

I don't even think it's an actual crime to smash your rented house up. If it was, the guards would have to prosecute those doing it. It's seen as a civil matter because the tenant is "in control of the property".

Such strange laws.

Quite a sensible law. The offence of criminal damage requires that the property damaged be the property of another. A person can do what they like with their own property including damaging or destroying it, unless of course they commit some other offences the property such as assault.
The voluntary transfer of possession by the owner means that the person holding the property is the owner's agent and presumed to be acting with the owners permission or consent in dealing with the property.

hawkelady

Claw Hammer wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Hopefully a couple of precedents can be set and councils held financially responsible for such vandalism.

I don't even think it's an actual crime to smash your rented house up. If it was, the guards would have to prosecute those doing it. It's seen as a civil matter because the tenant is "in control of the property".

Such strange laws.

Quite a sensible law. The offence of criminal damage requires that the property damaged be the property of another. A person can do what they like with their own property including damaging or destroying it, unless of course they commit some other offences the property such as assault.
The voluntary transfer of possession by the owner means that the person holding the property is the owner's agent and presumed to be acting with the owners permission or consent in dealing with the property.

But the property wasn't the tenants though

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What do you think we should do with them instead - leave them to sleep under a hedgerow?

Serious question.

Into a government built ghetto.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The voluntary transfer of possession

Who transferred the possession?

Mrs OBumble

the_syco wrote: »

Into a government built ghetto.

Yeah, Ballymun and Moyross both worked out well ....

server down

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah, Ballymun and Moyross both worked out well ....

Not the fault of the buildings though.

hawkelady

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

Into a government built ghetto.

Yeah, Ballymun and Moyross both worked out well ....

Well what would you do then???

pilly

It's an absolutely ridiculous situation that LL's are expected to sign up to long leases with RAS tenants and have no comeback when a place is wrecked like this.

Where are the advantages to such a lease for LL's? There are none.

Then tenants wonder why they struggle so much to get a LL to accept it.

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah, Ballymun and Moyross both worked out well ....

So? No, seriously. So? Or do you expect the private LL to pick up the repair tab?

hawkelady

I know on current RAS contracts they say the council will cover any damage on the end of a tenancy up to and including one months rent and not over !!

Why in gods name would any landlord sign up to that !!

seamus

It sounds like there needs to be some level of insurance built-in to deal with instances like this. Whether that's insurance from the RAS or a statutory part of landlord insurance, ultimately the issue here is that honest people on any form of government assistance find it incredibly difficult to get rental properties because landlords are (somewhat legitimately) worried about being screwed at the end of the tenancy.

I think we're long overdue a form of registry held by the RTB where landlords and tenants can share an access code and each can view the history of the other, say the last five years - rentals they've had, arrears, evictions, RTB complaints, etc. At least then everyone can go in with their eyes open.

On what to do with these animals that move from place to place destroying everything, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should build very basic properties in remote areas. 3 bed bungalows all with the exact same simple layout, filled with IKEA everything, a couple of KM from the nearest town and well away from neighbours. Properties so lacking in frills that they can be torn down and rebuilt in a few weeks if necessary.
If you get yourself "tagged" as one of these scumbags, then you can't get RAS/HAP, you can instead get one of these properties. That's your only option, take it or leave it.

Markcheese

seamus wrote:

On what to do with these animals that move from place to place destroying everything, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should build very basic properties in remote areas. 3 bed bungalows all with the exact same simple layout, filled with IKEA everything, a couple of KM from the nearest town and well away from neighbours. Properties so lacking in frills that they can be torn down and rebuilt in a few weeks if necessary. If you get yourself "tagged" as one of these scumbags, then you can't get RAS/HAP, you can instead get one of these properties. That's your only option, take it or leave it.

The Dutch have special last chance complexs, dunno how it works out for them,

splinter65

seamus wrote: »

It sounds like there needs to be some level of insurance built-in to deal with instances like this. Whether that's insurance from the RAS or a statutory part of landlord insurance, ultimately the issue here is that honest people on any form of government assistance find it incredibly difficult to get rental properties because landlords are (somewhat legitimately) worried about being screwed at the end of the tenancy.

I think we're long overdue a form of registry held by the RTB where landlords and tenants can share an access code and each can view the history of the other, say the last five years - rentals they've had, arrears, evictions, RTB complaints, etc. At least then everyone can go in with their eyes open.

On what to do with these animals that move from place to place destroying everything, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should build very basic properties in remote areas. 3 bed bungalows all with the exact same simple layout, filled with IKEA everything, a couple of KM from the nearest town and well away from neighbours. Properties so lacking in frills that they can be torn down and rebuilt in a few weeks if necessary.
If you get yourself "tagged" as one of these scumbags, then you can't get RAS/HAP, you can instead get one of these properties. That's your only option, take it or leave it.

I wouldn’t bother with bathrooms kitchens or even beds chairs etc.
They don’t really need them and they seem to resent them.
Imagine the effort that went into wrecking that place. Wow.

splinter65

Markcheese wrote: »

The Dutch have special last chance complexs, dunno how it works out for them,

I’m interested in this too but it’s hard to find out anything up to date about it.

Claw Hammer

hawkelady wrote: »

But the property wasn't the tenants though

The landlord pt the tenant in possession so its is the tenants as agent for the landlord. This is subject to an agreement with the landlord, which is a civil matter between landlord and tenant.

the_syco

seamus wrote: »

Perhaps we should build very basic properties in remote areas

Moyross was mentioned earlier. I think we should look at who doesn't cause trouble, and let them move out, and leave the rest in the hole.

Oh, and do a random lotto; whoever wins gets their house raided by trainee cops.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The landlord pt the tenant in possession so its is the tenants as agent for the landlord. This is subject to an agreement with the landlord, which is a civil matter between landlord and tenant.

So if you total a car that you rented from a company, it's a civil matter, and not a criminal matter?

Claw Hammer

the_syco wrote: »

Moyross was mentioned earlier. I think we should look at who doesn't cause trouble, and let them move out, and leave the rest in the hole.

Oh, and do a random lotto; whoever wins gets their house raided by trainee cops.


So if you total a car that you rented from a company, it's a civil matter, and not a criminal matter?

Yes.

endacl

naughtb4 wrote: »

What a disgrace, no doubt these people still have a "right to a house"

Get the deposit for a mortgage together and pay for one, they do.

Otherwise, what was that clever Dutch model? The empty shipping containers? ‘Scum Villages’, I believe it translates as?

Mrs OBumble

the_syco wrote: »

So? No, seriously. So? Or do you expect the private LL to pick up the repair tab?

Absolutely not. The council should be picking up the tab - and the people with dodgy pasts should be getting standard council houses (no flooring, curtains, beds, tables, chairs, whiteware provided), not RAS ones which have so much more for them to ruin.

But remember - it's possible that your kid could end up in primary school alongside kid(s) from a family like this. It's not feasible to totally socially exclude them. They're still human beings, at the end of the day.

Claw Hammer

When soldiers and their families were housed by the Dept of Defence the houses were inspected every week by the Commanding Officer of the barracks. The cost of repairing any damages was taken from the wages of the soldier concerned. Houses given to people by the council should be inspected weekly and the cost of repairs demanded and paid immediately or else the tenant is out.

hawkelady

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

So? No, seriously. So? Or do you expect the private LL to pick up the repair tab?

Absolutely not. The council should be picking up the tab - and the people with dodgy pasts should be getting standard council houses (no flooring, curtains, beds, tables, chairs, whiteware provided), not RAS ones which have so much more for them to ruin.

But remember - it's possible that your kid could end up in primary school alongside kid(s) from a family like this. It's not feasible to totally socially exclude them. They're still human beings, at the end of the day.

They pulled up floorboards and copper pipe and took doors off hinges for gods sake !! They are animals and should be treated as such.

strandroad

The_Conductor wrote: »

I don't agree with removing children from parents- unless it is absolutely necessary- however, there are clear child endangerment issues associated with parents bringing up children in conditions such as these- and there are compliance issues with removing toilets and other built-in conveniences, appliances and white goods (what the hell were they doing with them- selling them secondhand on buy-and-sell?)

Whatever about living conditions, these people must be seriously mentally unstable to cause so much damage and live in filth for so long. It was a drug den I guess. I don't think their kids were fed clothed or thought about much at all.
The parents need a detox or mental health facility and their kids need good care with someone else.

splinter65

endacl wrote: »

Get the deposit for a mortgage together and pay for one, they do.

Otherwise, what was that clever Dutch model? The empty shipping containers? ‘Scum Villages’, I believe it translates as?

I like the idea of the shipping containers.
If you clearly don’t need a toilet or a bed or any kind of furniture but do need somewhere to lie down where you won’t be moved on in the morning by AGS the a shipping container on a piece of waste land near a luas stop but away from neighbors sounds perfect.

splinter65

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Absolutely not. The council should be picking up the tab - and the people with dodgy pasts should be getting standard council houses (no flooring, curtains, beds, tables, chairs, whiteware provided), not RAS ones which have so much more for them to ruin.

But remember - it's possible that your kid could end up in primary school alongside kid(s) from a family like this. It's not feasible to totally socially exclude them. They're still human beings, at the end of the day.

Ah mrsbumble why would any decent council tenant be forced to live beside or even near to the likes of the tenants in that article.
Sure that wouldn’t be fair? Can you imagine?

Del2005

Where my parents are from there are several abandoned villages relatively close to towns. Any problem tenants should be moved to these locations and made live beside each other. Let the anti social tenants then learn what it's like to live beside anti social tenants, instead of making normal people continue to suffer them.

Spanish Eyes

I like the idea of bad tenants being on a list with the RTB. I know they have details of disputes but it is hard to follow sometimes, and you have to trawl a bit. But it's a start I suppose.

Say every tenant who had a judgment against them with RTB was on a register accessible by potential LLs or something like that? There has to be something to protect LLs.

I also agree that the Council and the LL who enter into a joint RAS, HAP or whatever should co fund an insurance policy, so that if things go south, at least the LL has some redress, as generally speaking the tenants may qualify for FLA. An awful burden on a LL to have to take things to court at their own expense, IMV.

I suppose Data Protection or some other Civil Liberties stuff would come into play about revealing the names of very bold tenants though.

Honestly, who would want to be a LL today at all?

Cuddlesworth

Del2005 wrote: »

Where my parents are from there are several abandoned villages relatively close to towns. Any problem tenants should be moved to these locations and made live beside each other. Let the anti social tenants then learn what it's like to live beside anti social tenants, instead of making normal people continue to suffer them.

Doesn't work like that. They don't suffer, they live together like pigs in ****. Happy and content.

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Absolutely not. The council should be picking up the tab - and the people with dodgy pasts should be getting standard council houses (no flooring, curtains, beds, tables, chairs, whiteware provided), not RAS ones which have so much more for them to ruin.

Why should the scum get council houses over the people who behave themselves?

Claw Hammer wrote: »

When soldiers and their families were housed by the Dept of Defence the houses were inspected every week by the Commanding Officer of the barracks. The cost of repairing any damages was taken from the wages of the soldier concerned. Houses given to people by the council should be inspected weekly and the cost of repairs demanded and paid immediately or else the tenant is out.

Pay with what? If they're on the dole, they'll just say that they cannot afford the amount, but will pay a fiver a week until whenever.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Say every tenant who had a judgment against them with RTB was on a register accessible by potential LLs or something like that? There has to be something to protect LLs.

In a perfect world. But in a perfect world, there wouldn't be scum.

In Ireland, said names get deleted for Data Protection laws.

Eric Cartman

this is why landlords jump through hoops to avoid social tenants. Even if they got a civil case against them they'd get nothing back.


"and copper piping and floor boards had been removed"
tells me all I need to know.

Taylor365

It's not illegal to set the barrier too high for HAP is it? (the good ol' 3 months rent deposit, first and last, etc)

splinter65

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Doesn't work like that. They don't suffer, they live together like pigs in ****. Happy and content.

Well the best of luck to them, as long as they’re not bothering decent people who just want to live a decent life.

GGTrek

In 2012 the paladins of tenants at the RTB refused termination notice of the tenant: https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/purchase-orders/final-do-to-issue-01937-07.pdf?sfvrsn=0

I do not know how but the name of the tenant does not appear in the RTB search only in the determination order content I posted.

Other news about the tenants:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/part-paralysed-woman-allegedly-assaulted-with-wine-bottle-1.2514322?mode=amp